https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771647 CESTAT Chennai held that appellant was liable for Service Tax as a selling agent, not as Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The tribunal examined appointment agreements and found appellant was procuring orders and promoting sales for principals in exchange for commission. Despite show cause notice correctly identifying appellant as selling agent, the original order erroneously classified services as Clearing and Forwarding. CESTAT concluded appellant did not perform essential characteristics of Clearing and Forwarding Agent as defined by HC precedent. The impugned order failed to appreciate facts properly. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771647 CESTAT Chennai held that appellant was liable for Service Tax as a selling agent, not as Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The tribunal examined appointment agreements and found appellant was procuring orders and promoting sales for principals in exchange for commission. Despite show cause notice correctly identifying appellant as selling agent, the original order erroneously classified services as Clearing and Forwarding. CESTAT concluded appellant did not perform essential characteristics of Clearing and Forwarding Agent as defined by HC precedent. The impugned order failed to appreciate facts properly. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771647